Jump to content

Requests for comment/Global policy against vanishing while still condemning anyone

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. It's been almost 4 years since this RfC has been created and has only garnered two supports so far (excluding the nominator) with one of the supporters globally locked. It's safe to say there's no consensus on this and it's unlikely there ever will be. --SHB2000 (t • c) 08:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose amending the right to vanish to globally ban vanishing while still condemning anyone else, whether other wiki users or not. Jimbo Wales already said om 2006 that "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." Thus those vowing on their userpages to "vanish" while still condemning or criticizing anyone else are too dishonest by putting condemned or criticized users in major disadvantages defending themselves.

Here is my proposed global policy:

  1. To condemn or criticize anyone else requires reasonable efforts to solve the issue rather than to vanish.
  2. Only those who absolutely do not return may vanish. Thus vanishing users cannot use the userpages to condemn nor criticize anyone else for any reasons.
  3. Otherwise, it is a false vanishing by deliberately intending to indefinitely disrupt wikis, which shall constitute aggravating libel in violation of wmf:Terms of Use/en#4. Refraining from Certain Activities, by putting condemned or criticized users in major disadvantages defending themselves.
  4. Immediate and temporary injunctions: Any users have the right to tag the userpages with false vanishing for speedy deletion, and any administrators have the right to directly delete or hide inappropriate contents, without regard to the conflict of interest.
  5. This kind of speedy deletion shall also apply to the userpages vowing to vanish but already condemning or criticizing users for any reasons before effectuating this plan, since the false vanishing has been consecutive and continuous.

Best wish to maintain more orderly wikis.--Jusjih (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

[edit]
Support with exception: if the process takes an excessive amount of time, it could be skipped. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale is that since a user has a right to vanish, they should be able to vanish unconditionally even if they have to wait longer. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want a template for this proposal?--Jusjih (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the translation from w:zh:Template:假隱退:
This userpage self-describes vanishing, but it still publicly criticizes and condemns anyone and anything else on wiki, without trying to resolve it. Thus it may be suspected of fake vanishing, making the criticized and condemned parties in a clearly unfair disadvantage trying to answer and defend themselves. The public interest would not be improved, so the wmf:Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities banning harassing and abusing others may be violated. Thus this page is temporarily hidden and may be requested for oversight.
To the involved user: Please explain why vanish and still publicly criticize and condemn anyone and anything else on wiki. Not explaining may be suspected of the policy against libel and the guideline on what cannot be out in the userpage.--Jusjih (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With no reply here, I am asking at Stewards/Elections_2021/Questions#To oversight false vanishing, answered by one candidate.--Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
c:Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation#Policy against vanishing while still condemning anyone got a reply.--Jusjih (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
False vanishing might violate Universal Code of Conduct#3.1_–_Harassment.--Jusjih (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this RFC is opened nearly 2 years ago and there is only few of supports, it is recommended that closing this RFC as no consensus. Thanks. --SCP-2000 14:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SCP-2000: I disagree. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SCP-2000: I also strongly disagree your proposal to close it as no consensus. Even when not counting myself, this Rfc has two supports and no opposition. Thus I would consider closing it too soon as in contempt of wmf:Terms of Use/en#4. Refraining from Certain Activities and Universal Code of Conduct#3.1_–_Harassment, irresponsibly. I propose leaving this RfC open at least until next steward election.--Jusjih (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, @SCP-2000: I suggest you to refrain from premature closing this RFC because it affects UCoC modifications, rather I would say that this RFC should better be decided by WMF Board of Trustees members. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SCP-2000: Meta:Requests for deletion#User:Kisnaak is the live case why false vanishing is bad for accused parties, bad for the community, thus bad for everyone. In addition to two supports plus me, see also Stewards/Elections_2021/Questions#To_oversight_false_vanishing answered by several candidates to be stewards and c:Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation#Policy against vanishing while still condemning anyone that would add the values to this Rfc.--Jusjih (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2022#User:Kisnaak has been archived as deleted the false vanishing. An essay is up at w:zh:维基百科:假隱退.--Jusjih (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop outright just using your own ruling to support your own claim to a rule. This is clearly lying. LuciferianThomas 03:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LuciferianThomas Who lied? And citation needed. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of responses here (in support, in opposition, or otherwise) is probably because you have not explained why a global policy is needed here. The examples you have cited would seem to indicate that existing local and global policies are sufficient. Emufarmers (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to further support Jimbo Wales commenting about making libels in userpages.--Jusjih (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed as another user objected the conduct

Comment from LuciferianThomas

[edit]

I only just noticed that I have never actually commented on this RfC. As previously stated in Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2023#False vanishing, which resulted in a rewrite then delete of the so-called "false vanishing" essay. While harassment while vanished/retired is obviously unacceptable, simply condemning or criticising before leaving should not be banned as long as it is not false. The points of the proposer is a classic example of slippery slope, where there is no actual connection between their points and "condemnation" jumps right to "libel" and "disruption" which makes no sense at all. I would also have to point out directly that this might just be the proposer's plan to wipe off criticism against them on a specific project per Requests for comment/Jusjih's disruptive and abusive behaviours cross projects. LuciferianThomas 03:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LuciferianThomas That closed RFC, if I remember correctly, has some propaganda-like comments, which I'm afraid that this page applies to that, I'm considering to nominate that RFC for deletion. (this is just based on an e-mail from a Chinese-speaking Wikidata administrator, not from Jusjih, which they surveyed those related RFC pages.) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
s:User:Beleg_Tâl/Essays/Jimbo_Wales_against_attacks_on_userpages is the latest place of the essay.--Jusjih (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Global_policy_against_vanishing_while_still_condemning_anyone&oldid=26863288"